From: *@eli.users.panix.com
In comp.editors, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 07.03.2024 14:40, Geoff Clare wrote:
> > I am using Linux and the "vi" on my system(s) is not vim, it is nvi.
> As I understand it nvi is just a reimplementation of classical vi.
> I assume your Linux also supports vim. Is there a reason why you
> prefer to use nvi?
Some people find vim does too much. I find I need to carefully pare back
some default configurations in vim to make it "sane" for me. With
settings like "scrolloff" set, I find it actually interferes with my
editing most of the time. But there are rare cases when I do want want
that. The same holds for syntax highlighting.
> (I'm really curious since there's so many fundamental and useful
> features supported in vim that I surely don't want to miss them.
> Even at times when I used both, vi and vim, in parallel depending
> on the actual platform I was working on it wouldn't have occurred
> to me to stay with vi (for consistency, or so) on a platform where
> vim was available.)
The default vi on Slackware has been elvis probably since the first
version of that distro. People who have been using that since forever
likely find vim quirky.
The default vi on alpine is the one in busybox. The only good thing I
can say about it is it's small. In a pinch, it beats editing with shell
tools (like cat, head, tail, grep, echo, and dd) but it has a lot of
issues as a "vi" clone.
I turned to vim in the 2.x era because my editing style uncovered bugs
in the true vi I used on Solaris and HP-UX. I'm still using it now, but
the vim-isms I use are very slim compared to the vi original things I
use.
Elijah
------
the biggest bug was vi forgetting marks sometimes
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
